Rouse, Rachelle

Abstract Introduction A 2017 survey by the American Society of Hematology found a widespread perceived shortage of classical hematologists in the US, which was compounded by a low trainee interest in the field (<5%) (Masselink LE, Blood Adv 2019). Recently, we reported that among hematologist/oncologists at the 64 National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers with clinical programs, only ~5% identify as classical hematologists, despite 15% of them including classic hematology (CH) patients in their practice (Go LT, Blood Adv, in press). However, there remains limited data on CH consult volumes at NCI-designated cancer centers (West CV, JCO Oncol Pract 2023). This study aimed to evaluate the volume and nature of CH outpatient consults at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center (MCCC). Methods We reviewed electronic medical records to identify all completed outpatient consults in CH, malignant hematology (MH), and solid tumor oncology at MCCC in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1 to December 31, 2024. Consults were defined as either external or internal referrals for new patients seen in CH outpatient clinic. CH consults were further categorized by referral reasons and the type of physician (CH, MH, or fellow) performing the consultations. CH physicians were defined as those whose clinical practice primarily focuses on non-malignant hematologic conditions; one advanced practice provider (APP) was included in this group. Inpatient consults, electronic consults, and return visits were excluded. Results In 2024, a total of 17,153 outpatient consults were completed. Of these, 13.4% were CH, 30.5% were MH and 56.1% were solid tumor oncology. Among CH consults, the most common referral reasons were abnormal blood counts (68.3%), bleeding disorders (10.6%), thrombosis (11.8%), and other hematologic diagnoses (9.3%). Within abnormal blood counts, the leading indications were anemia (50.7%), thrombocytopenia (15.3%), leukopenia (11.0%), leukocytosis (9.1%), and pancytopenia (7.0%). Among bleeding disorders, the top reasons included suspected bleeding diathesis (49.4%), von Willebrand disease (24.5%), Hemophilia A (4.1%), Factor VII deficiency (3.7%), and platelet qualitative defect (3.4%). Thrombosis-related consults were most often for pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis (43.2%), antiphospholipid syndrome (17.7%), thrombophilia (16.2%), portal vein thrombosis (4.1%), and splenic infarct (2.6%). The top ten referrals for a specific hematologic diagnosis were iron deficiency anemia (29.2%), pulmonary embolism or DVT (13.5%), immune thrombocytopenic purpura (10.3%), von Willebrand disease (6.9%), hemoglobinopathy (5.5%), antiphospholipid syndrome (5.5%), thrombophilia (5.1%), anemia of chronic kidney disease (2.4%), aplastic anemia (1.5%), and hereditary spherocytosis (1.4%). Of the 114 physicians at MCCC during the study period, 55 (48.2%) were medical oncologists, 54 (47.4%) primarily practiced MH, and only 5 (4.4%) were dedicated CH physicians. Despite comprising only 4.4% of the hematology/oncology workforce, CH physicians or fellows completed the majority (86.1%) of CH consults; MH physicians completed 13.8%. Conclusion CH consults represent a substantial portion of outpatient hematology referrals at MCCC, primarily for diagnostic evaluation of cytopenias or thrombotic/bleeding symptoms. However, a striking mismatch exists between CH physician representation (4.4%) and CH consult volume (13.4%). This imbalance has implications for quality, timeliness, and continuity of care for patients with non-malignant hematologic conditions. Our findings underscore the urgent need to expand recruitment and career development pathways in CH to address a huge clinical demand.

Abstract Introduction: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a rare and life-threatening hyperinflammatory syndrome resulting from immune dysregulation. While diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines (e.g., HLH-2004) are established for pediatric HLH, adult-onset HLH remains both a diagnostic and therapeutic challenge, with limited characterization and sparse outcome data. Here, we conduct a single-institution retrospective cohort study to evaluate clinical features, causes, and prognostic markers associated with outcomes. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all adult patients (≥18 years) first diagnosed with HLH across all Mayo Clinic sites between January 1, 2006 and July 1, 2025. Diagnosis was based on hematologist adjudication at time of care. Patients with prior diagnoses of HLH or HLH related to T-cell therapy (CAR-T) were excluded. Clinical and laboratory variables were extracted from electronic health records. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as time from diagnosis of HLH to death or last follow-up. OS was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of mortality was performed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, adjusting for age at diagnosis, sex, HLH etiology, and relevant clinical and laboratory parameters. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's concordance index (c-index). Descriptive statistics were summarized using median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables and frequency with percentages for categorical variables. Results: A total of 203 patients diagnosed with HLH were included. The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (range 18-86). The cohort was predominantly male (n=130, 64%) and White (n=163, 80%). The majority of diagnoses occurred in more recent years, with 75 patients (36.9%) diagnosed between 2021–2025, 61 (30.0%) between 2016–2020, and 43 (21.2%) between 2011–2015. Prior to HLH diagnosis, 86 patients (42.4%) had a history of malignancy, 55 (27.1%) had a history of autoimmune disease, and 28 (13.8%) had a history of transplant. The most common HLH etiologies were malignancy-associated (n=99, 49%), infectious (n=51, 25%), and autoimmune (n=24, 12%), in addition to idiopathic (n=6, 3%), post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease or graft-vs-host disease (n=3, 1%), drug-induced (n=3, 1%), or primary HLH (n=1, 0.5%). The most common malignancies included T-cell (n=35, 17.2%) and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (n=24, 11.8%). Forty-four cases (21.7%) were associated with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV), either through overt viremia or malignancies with EBV positivity on pathology report. Five patients (2.5%) had COVID-19–associated HLH and 2 (1.0%) were attributed to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Overall, 164 patients (80.8%) met the HLH-2004 diagnostic threshold of ≥5 out of 8 criteria, while 196 (96.6%) met the HLH-2024 ≥4 of 7 modified criteria. Among patients with available information, elevated ferritin was present in 197 of 198 (99.5%), fever in 185 of 202 (91.6%), cytopenias involving ≥2 lineages in 184 of 199 (92.5%), hemophagocytosis in 156 of 182 (85.7%), elevated sCD25 in 117 of 121 (96.7%), hypertriglyceridemia in 117 of 186 (62.9%), hypofibrinogenemia in 118 of 196 (60.2%), splenomegaly in 125 of 188 (66.5%), and impaired NK cell activity in 16 of 25 (64.0%). In addition, hepatomegaly was noted in 57 of 195 patients (29.2%). After a median follow-up of 58.3 months, median OS was 62 days (95% CI 40-110) from day of diagnosis. In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model with moderate discrimination (c-index=0.75), after adjusting for age at diagnosis and sex, T-cell lymphoma–driven HLH (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.05–3.00, p = 0.03) and elevated blood urea nitrogen (median 51.0 mg/dL, IQR 27.9–99.1; HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.37–3.13, p < 0.005) were independently associated with shorter OS Conclusions: In this cohort of adult patients with HLH, malignancy was found to be the most common trigger for HLH. T-cell malignancies in particular were strongly correlated with poor survival. Elevated blood urea nitrogen at diagnosis also identified patients at significantly higher risk of death, consistent with other critical illnesses that can present with multi-organ failure. These findings emphasize the need for adult-specific prognostic tools incorporating disease etiology and organ dysfunction markers to better stratify risk and guide clinical management in adult-onset HLH.

Abstract Background: In 2022, Medicare alone spent $42.1 billion on prescription drugs, with antineoplastic and classical hematology drugs accounting for 44% and 8% of the total, respectively (2024 MedPAC Data Book). While antineoplastic drugs have been extensively studied, classical hematology drugs have received comparatively little attention. We analyzed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of classical hematology drugs over the past 30 years and examined their per-patient costs and annual total US sales. Methods: We identified all classical hematology drugs (those prescribed by hematologist/oncologists for non-malignant indications) approved by the FDA from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2024, including novel pharmaceuticals (synthesized from chemical compounds), biologics (derived from living organisms), and biosimilars (highly similar, but not identical, to biologics previously approved). Cost estimates for 2024 were based on wholesale acquisition costs (WAC), using annual WAC for continuous-duration treatments and typical course WAC for fixed-duration treatments. WAC and US gross sales data for 2024 were obtained from IPD Analytics (Aventura, FL). Results: A total of 98 classical hematology drugs were approved over the past 30 years—11% in 1995–2004, 26% in 2005–2014, and 63% in 2015–2024. These included pharmaceuticals (36%), biologics (54%), and biosimilars (10%). Six gene therapies received approval: 3 for hemophilia and 1 each for sickle disease, beta thalassemia, and sickle cell disease/beta thalassemia (dual indication). Common categories of indications included bleeding (31%), anemia (30%), neutropenia (9%), and thrombocytopenia (9%). Leading diagnoses were hemophilia (25%), chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (9%), thromboembolism (8%), paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH; 7%), anemia of chronic kidney disease (6%), iron deficiency anemia (6%), and immune thrombocytopenia (5%). The median cost for gene therapies was $2.9 million per treatment (range: $2.2 million–$3.5 million). Among non-gene therapies, median costs were $3,000 per course for fixed-duration treatments (range: $64–$378,000) and $467,000 annually for continuous-duration treatments (range: $2,400–$1.8 million). The most expensive fixed-duration treatments targeted hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis ($378,000/8-week course), while the most expensive continuous-duration treatments were for hemophilia (median: $630,000/year; range: $270,000–$853,000). Estimated 2024 US gross sales across all drugs exceeded $70 billion. Top-selling indications included thromboembolism ($43.5 billion), hemophilia ($6.9 billion), immune thrombocytopenia ($4.9 billion), PNH ($4.7 billion), chemotherapy-induced neutropenia ($2.8 billion), anemia of chronic kidney disease ($2.0 billion), and iron deficiency anemia ($1.8 billion). Total sales for all gene therapies combined were $143 million. Six drugs have been discontinued (year approved/year discontinued/reason): betrixaban (2017/2020/business), daprodustat (2023/2024/business), fidanacogene elaparvovec (2024/2025/business), oprelvekin (1997/2011/business), peginesatide (2012/2013/safety), and voxelotor (2019/2024/safety). There are limitations to our study. Some drugs have non-classical hematology indications (anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation; luspatercept in myelodysplastic neoplasm) and/or may also be prescribed by non-classical hematologists (erythropoiesis stimulating agents by nephrologists and medical oncologists). We were unable to disaggregate the sales data in these situations. Therefore, the annual sales for certain indications may be overestimated. Conclusions: Classical hematology drugs contribute substantially to US prescription drug spending, with over $70 billion in annual sales and medications for thromboembolism accounting for over half of the costs. Approvals have accelerated over the past three decades, doubling each decade. Biologics and biosimilars now represent two-thirds of approvals. Continuous-duration treatments, particularly for rare hereditary diseases like hemophilia, carry significant financial burden, with annual costs per patient often exceeding $0.5 million. In these conditions, if gene therapies demonstrate durable efficacy, they may prove to be cost-effective alternatives. As more gene therapies are developed, evaluating their long-term value relative to chronic high-cost treatments will be essential for shaping future reimbursement and access strategies.

Background: The term classical hematology (CH), referring to a subspecialty focusing on non-cancer blood disorders, was officially adopted by the American Society of Hematology (ASH) in 2022. There is a perceived shortage of classical hematologists, although data are limited (Winter JN, Hematologist 2022). Prior studies have shown that <6% of hematology-oncology fellows pursue a practice subspecializing in CH after training (Todd RF, Blood 2004; Marshall Al, Blood Adv 2018). Moreover, mentorship is consistently cited as the most important factor guiding fellows' career decisions (Sharma D, Blood Adv 2019; Masselink LE, Blood Adv 2019). To help bridge the CH workforce gap, ASH has supported additional hematology-focused fellowship programs (HFFP) within select hematology-oncology fellowship programs. CH constitutes a large proportion of consults in US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated cancer centers (West CV, JCO Oncol Pract 2024). The goals of our study were: 1) to determine the proportion of adult hematologist-oncologists within NCI cancer centers who practice CH; and 2) to describe the physician characteristics of cancer centers with HFFP and compare these centers to those without HFFP. Methods: We included all NCI-designated cancer centers with a clinical program as of April 1, 2024. The only exception was St Jude Children's Hospital due to its pediatric focus. We obtained the practice profile of each internal medicine-trained adult hematologist-oncologist (henceforth, physician) as well as the availability of HFFP from the respective cancer center websites. We also searched the corresponding department of medicine and division of hematology at each affiliated academic institution to ensure inclusion of all physicians practicing CH. Each physician was classified into one of the following categories: classical hematologist (attending to only non-cancer conditions), general hematologist-oncologist (cancer and non-cancer conditions), and oncologist (cancer only). The number of hematology-oncology fellowship programs in the US was obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Results: We included 64 NCI-designated cancer centers, 55 of which were considered as comprehensive cancer centers. There was a total of 4,616 physicians (3,891 oncologists [84.3%], 487 hematologists-oncologists [10.6%], and 238 classical hematologists [5.1%]). The median numbers of physicians, oncologists, general hematologist-oncologists, and classical hematologists per center were 55 (range, 16-275), 45 (range, 12-270), 5 (range, 0-48), and 3 (range, 0-13), respectively. The median proportions of classical hematologists and physicians practicing CH (general hematologist-oncologists plus classical hematologists) were 5.1% (range, 0-20.0) and 14.9% (range, 0-55.6%), respectively. There were 12 HFFP within NCI-designated cancer centers (18.8%). Most (11/12) centers with HFFP had >50 physicians (median 95 [range, 38-185]) and >5% classical hematologists (median 6% [range, 3.8-13.5%]); 11 centers with similar characteristics did not have HFFP. Centers with HFFP have significantly higher numbers of physicians (median 95.0 [range, 38-185] vs 49.5 [range, 16-275]; P=0.001) and classical hematologists (median 6.0 [range, 3-13] vs 2.0 [range, 0-11]; P<0.001) but similar proportions of classical hematologists (median 6.0% [range, 3.8-13.5] vs 4.5% [range, 0-20.0]; P=0.078) and physicians practicing CH (median 12.3% [range, 6.5-47.7] vs 15.7% [range, 0-55.6]; P=0.402) compared to those without HFFP. Conclusions: Among adult hematologist-oncologists at NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 20 are classical hematologists, although 1 in 7 have CH as part of their practice. Within NCI-designated cancer centers, only 1 in 5 have an HFFP. These findings suggest that there is an opportunity for NCI-designated cancer centers to encourage and recruit physicians subspecializing in CH and a rationale to create additional HFFPs. These measures may help further alleviate CH workforce shortages and expand CH mentorship to meet the needs of an increasingly complex subspecialty within hematology.

Background The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) launched the Diversity in Oncology initiative in 2017 to address the need for increased minority representation in the hematology-oncology workforce. A recent series of reports, titled “State of the Oncology Workforce in America,” published in JCO Oncology Practice in 2021 and 2022, focused on this issue. Notably, these reports did not include any data regarding the representation of Asian minorities in the field. Therefore, our objective was to assess the proportion of Asian professionals within the hematology-oncology workforce, encompassing both practitioners and trainees. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search for publicly available data regarding Asian representation among US hematology-oncology practitioners and trainees in both adult and pediatric fields. Our primary data sources included the 2020 US Census, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and various professional societies. We defined practitioners to include hematologist-oncologists, gynecologic oncologists, radiation oncologists, surgical oncologists, hematopathologists, hematology-oncology nurse practitioners, hematology-oncology physician assistants, and nurses specializing in hematology-oncology. Trainees encompassed fellows and residents. Additionally, we gathered comparable data on the US population, medical students, adult internal medicine residents, gynecology residents, pediatric residents, pathology residents, surgery residents, nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. To provide a comprehensive overview of the hematology-oncology workforce, we utilized data from 2020 to 2022, and whenever possible, we collected longitudinal data on trainees over the years. Results As of 2020, Asians represented 6.2% of the US population. Among hematology-oncology physician practitioners, the percentage of Asian individuals ranges from 14.7% to 32.1%, including 32.1% of adult hematologist-oncologists, 20.4% of pediatric hematologist-oncologists, 25.9% of radiation oncologists, 14.7% of gynecologic oncologists, and 7.0% of hematology-oncology physician assistants. In the realm of physician trainees, Asian representation is between 17.9% and 35.3%, with 35.3% of adult hematology-oncology fellows, 20.0% of pediatric hematology-oncology fellows, 26.4% of radiation oncology residents, and 17.9% of gynecologic oncology fellows. Additionally, the proportion of Asian residents from which hematology-oncology fellows are drawn ranges from 14.9% to 35.9%. Specifically, 35.9% of internal medicine residents, 22.0% of pediatric residents, 14.9% of gynecology residents, 26.6% of pathology residents, and 19.2% of surgical residents are Asian. Furthermore, 26.7% of medical students identify as Asian. Notably, the proportions of Asian hematology-oncology trainees and medical students have remained relatively stable from 2005 to 2022. Data on hematopathologists, surgical oncologists, and non-physician practitioners are limited, although Asian representation among hematology-oncology physician assistants is 7.0% and among nurses is 7.2%. Conclusions Asians comprise a large segment of the hematology-oncology workforce in the US. While only 1 in 20 people in the US are Asians, between 1 in 3 and 1 in 5 hematology-oncology physician practitioners and trainees, are Asians. Data are limited for non-physician practitioners. Asian minority representation should be highlighted and considered as an example of success in diversity in hematology-oncology workforce. This framework should be embraced moving forward to continue advancing minority representation throughout the field of hematology-oncology.